Zainy Zig-Zag Zagis

That's the attraction for car racing, it matters not if some one gets hurt.
Heck, in the UK people were taking pictures as a girl died in front of them.
People like getting people hurt as long as there are no personal reprocussions.
Snide remarks are now a way of life under the cover of free speech but to try and halt innovation is a crime against the whole human race.
Then again you may get the train wreck that you are hoping for to obtain personal vindication.

 

No. A superconductor has zero current travelling THRU it, that is why it is called super. On the other hand it must have a smidgeon of dc resistance to keep Ohms law intact. Essentially the current passes between two mediums but is not part of either. Read up on surface wave.
When your book was written I suspect that super conductivity was unknown
As for the actual current flow resistance this can be termed as a coefficient of discharge in a similar way that displacement is described.
As for what is right or wrong that is a natural evolution of science as understanding increases. If you have a different understanding as to what superconductivety is where resistance is zero because of the rejection of magnetic fields I sure would like to hear it. To me, when I discovered the presence of particles it told me that all books have to be re written to show my findings. Time will tell when dynasours pass away.
Best regards
Art, the guy you said slept thru physics !

 

Picture a conventional linear dipole a half-wavelength long. The current distribution will be a half-sinusoid - maximum at the centre feedpoint, minimum at the ends.

Now take the legs of the dipole and bend them in half, bringing the ends back towards the feedpoint; make the spacing 1" or so.

Close to the "bends", the currents flowing along the two closely-spaced parallel wires are almost identical in magnitude but opposite in direction; so there will be little radiation. Radiation will be more concentrated towards the feedpoint where the currents in the parallel wires are dissimilar magnitude.

Significant radiation is now taking place along a much smaller proportion of the antenna than in a linear dipole; so, for the same total radiation, more current has to flow in the "bent leg" dipole than in the linear dipole.

In practice, bending the dipole leg back on itself raises the resonant frequency, so you have to add more wire to compensate. You then have a situation where a higher current is flowing, through more wire, than in a linear dipole on the same frequency, and losses are correspondingly greater.

The more "bends" you try, the worse things become: the radiation cancellation becomes more complete over a greater proportion of the dipole; the current needed for equivalent radiation to the linear dipole increases further; and you need even more wire to maintain the resonant frequency.

That's how conventional theory says it works; that's how it models in EZNEC; and that's what I measured in my experiment.

Steve G3TXQ

 

I don't remember at the moment whether it is a 1/2 wl or not that when joined at one end and fed at the other end it is resonant. So I looked at the tape as being an infinite number of length joined in series. The longer the wire the smaller the discrepancy in terms of a fractional WL number for any frequency. The tape becomes the load and thus will radiate regardless of how many bends are placed on it. I suspect that I am mis understanding your description.
As you stated, two current flows in opposite directions cancel the external
magnetic field only but it is still a load and will radiate.Crunch it up into small ball and its properties will still stay the same.
Actually the current flow will be BETWEEN THE TWO WIRES AND ON THE SURFACE OF EACH WIRE. It does not flow on the outer edges where the wires are not close to each other (Surface flow/wave only occures BETWEEN two mediums) Note with respect to vectors the two vectors show up again
with a pair of vectors meeting and canceling and because they are not in line
the torque or spin vector can be seen.Also known as shear.
Best regards
Art

 

Art,

With respect, that's not what I said.

What I said was that if two parallel wires which are close together (in terms of wavelength) carry currents which are equal magnitude but opposite phase, there will be little far-field radiation from the structure. That's why there is little radiation from well-balanced ladderline.

Steve G3TXQ

 

Steve, you made your point
Art

 

Try anything once

This student (who thinks he can learn from anyone) has question or three.
First I let this post get away from me: sorry for the late entry.

Because I worked with GE during the developement of MRI which basically turns the whole human body into an antenna I'm subject to try more than most as an experiment. Sooo!

I have ribbon cable: it is 40 conductor. Is that enough conductors, or should I double it to 80? About how long should the ribbon be to work on 2 meters?

Forgive if my questions are elementary.

 

Not true. A superconductor is called a superconductor because the resistance is zero or for all purposes zero. It is a "super" conductor.

It seems like you repeatedly confuse cause and effect Art.

You seem to think creating external forces that only very crudely mimic (at best) a superconductor you have made a superconductor. This is a mistake or pattern common to people who come up with odd false theories, two examples being the CFA and EH antennas.

Superconductors are created because of the conductor materials and temperatures, not by colorful imagination and equally colorful ribbon cable.

73 Tom

 

Tom
The bottom line is that your pride won't let you try it.
What we are talking about is a conductive material which has on its surface
tightly bound together particles just like you see on the surface of a liquid.
If the particles were not there then you cannot create surface flow, there must be two mediums to contain current flow.
The question is how does one change the flow from the interior of the element
so that it can efficiently eject the particles by what we know as levitation.
A diamagnetic material such as aluminum can carry an ac current whiuch produces a magnetic field both internally and externally but when current flow stops all magnetic fields dissipate and the lattis of the material revert to a random form. Aluminum is not a perfect diamagnetic material, if it was current would flow without resistance. However when current flows it also creats an external magnetic field part of which flows THRU the outer surface of the metal.
Ac current always wants to flow on the surface between two different mediums but if the magnetic field intrudes into the metal it creates obstruction to the current flow otherwise known as resistance to the current flow.
If the current flow was able to rise above the skin depth then the current is not passing thu the metal so resistance to current flow is else where than the aluminum.
If we balance all capacitive and inductive reactances including distributed
then we have a soley resistive circuit as the reactive fields will cancel each other This way all external fields disappear as does their foot hold in the material known as skin depth! Now the current flow is not impeded anymore
and will rise to the surface traveling INBETWEEN the two mediums where it will still create friction or resistance but NOT in the aluminum.
Now we have zero current flow in the aluminum so there is no resistance!
Thus we have placed current flow on the surface which is similar to what happens with superconductors with the onset of temperature change.
Tom this is particle physics education and it is very hard to educate somebody who never took advanced education or is not willing to try things for himself. In such situations if you want to determine the dc resistance of aluminum or ac for that matter the current flow must be in the material and not floating some where else. Where it travels is where resistance of any sort
occures. In a superconductor it is the metal temperature that prevents the formation of a external magnetic field so in this case we dont have the formation of external fields in the first place so there is not a field to remove by cancellation, BIG DIFFERENCE

 

Now the question comes along as to what are these particles on the surface on diamagnetic materials?
First we have to understand that for current flow to be on the surface there must be something else or a medium to resist the elevation vectors.
Some scientists recognise this and come to the conclusion that there is an aether out there that is material and not a vacuum.
But using classical physics and its formulas is where we get all our information about radiation. Part of classical physics is electro statics which is about static particles. We all know that movement creates fields and this is what happens
to particles when we move the and make them dynamic., Oddly enough when we look at this in mathematical terms we get the same formula that maxwell produced with the help of others for radiation. So bound up in Classical physics
is that static particles or electrons at rest reside on all diamagnetic materials.
Unfortunately this correlation never made it into the physics books.
Knowing that we have particles on the surface we know that if we can move
these particles using elevation as well as a forward moving vector created
by current we can add a charge to these particles and accelerate them to carry communication. When I say carry we all know that AC current generates a magnetic field that also changes to a capacitive field and can even revert back into a AC current, this circuit is called a TANK circuit.
Now in propagatioin we have seen that it travels in a straight line even tho it has mass where normally gravity would drag it down. Again we have the laws of classical physics that state every action is equal and opposite with a reaction and in this case the accelerated particle is the equal reaction to gravity which has an accelleration where both vectors cancel out. So all the evidence is there already so we dont have to make new laws to make things happen, they were there all the time. Now looking at the force vectors that apply acceleration. If there was just one vector we can project a missile into an accelleration mode but we all know that the missile will start to tumble into a forward spin and lose its straight line trajectory dependent on the medium that it travels thru. So it was natural when we changed over from muskets to rifles that we would provide a helical path in the barrel to provide spin the the bullet for accuracy. Well it is the same for particles at rest on diamagnetic materials. We first must elevat the particle from the surface with a vector supplied by displacement current otherwise known as eddy current which spins the particle at the same time the particle is elevated and then comes the current applied vector and of it goes.
Again I have not invented anything or made anything up to make this theory
interact and mesh in any way other than follow the existing rules of classical physics that is more than 100 years ond. I just determined that Classical physics provides for particles and not waves make up propagation as stated but hidden for over 100 years.
Regards
Art